Re: NASA "moon" video with air effects

[B2431]

>From: Steve Hix
>Date: 11/20/2003 1:12 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> (Anders) wrote:
>
>> Why dont someone point a huge telescope at the landing sites on the
>> moon and put an end to this rubbish topic.
>
>If you figure the maximum resolution of the biggest telescope on earth,
>you'll find that it can't resolve details as small as the visual effects
>remaining from the Apollo missions.
>
>On the other hand, you *can* still get a return from the laser ranging
>experiments left behind, given a sufficiently powerful laser.
>
>On the third hand, some imaging returned from a lunar orbiter fairly
>recently show blast marks and some other visual evidence from one of the
>Apollo sites.
>

Three hands? Born near Three Mile Island?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John Keeney]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Steve Hix
> >Date: 11/20/2003 1:12 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> > (Anders) wrote:
> >
> >> Why dont someone point a huge telescope at the landing sites on the
> >> moon and put an end to this rubbish topic.
> >
> >If you figure the maximum resolution of the biggest telescope on earth,
> >you'll find that it can't resolve details as small as the visual effects
> >remaining from the Apollo missions.
> >
> >On the other hand, you *can* still get a return from the laser ranging
> >experiments left behind, given a sufficiently powerful laser.
> >
> >On the third hand, some imaging returned from a lunar orbiter fairly
> >recently show blast marks and some other visual evidence from one of the
> >Apollo sites.
> >
>
> Three hands? Born near Three Mile Island?

No the third hand (ie "The Gripping Hand") indicates he is an ET
and that the imperial blockade of The Moat has broken down.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"John Keeney" > wrote:

> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: Steve Hix
> > >Date: 11/20/2003 1:12 AM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >In article >,
> > > (Anders) wrote:
> > >
> > >> Why dont someone point a huge telescope at the landing sites on the
> > >> moon and put an end to this rubbish topic.
> > >
> > >If you figure the maximum resolution of the biggest telescope on earth,
> > >you'll find that it can't resolve details as small as the visual effects
> > >remaining from the Apollo missions.
> > >
> > >On the other hand, you *can* still get a return from the laser ranging
> > >experiments left behind, given a sufficiently powerful laser.
> > >
> > >On the third hand, some imaging returned from a lunar orbiter fairly
> > >recently show blast marks and some other visual evidence from one of the
> > >Apollo sites.
> > >
> >
> > Three hands? Born near Three Mile Island?
>
> No the third hand (ie "The Gripping Hand") indicates he is an ET
> and that the imperial blockade of The Moat has broken down.

Darn...I wasn't supposed to let on about that.

(Anyone seen the Watchmakers that used to be in this cage here?...)

[Pete]

"John Keeney" > wrote

>
> No the third hand (ie "The Gripping Hand") indicates he is an ET
> and that the imperial blockade of The Moat has broken down.

No...the Mote, not Moat.

Pete

[B2431]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)

<snip>

>question #3 why it is so short?
>
>Michael
>

It's short and of low quality so people with dial up connections don't have to
spend hours downloading the clip. Besides, do you really want to watch 30 more
minutes of some guy driving on the moon?

Let's face it, you have made up your mind an, logic and facts be damned, you
know what's right and the thousands of people involved with the landings are
all liars.

Do you deny the Holocaust too?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Henry J. Cobb]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> Let's face it, you have made up your mind an, logic and facts be damned, you
> know what's right and the thousands of people involved with the landings are
> all liars.

Oh, it's a much bigger conspiracy than that.

After all hundreds of scientists at outside labs were given moon rocks
to play with that had features that they claimed to not be able to
reproduce on the Earth.

And then there are several other countries that could very well have
tracked the Apollo missions and never complained about not seeing
them.

But I suppose if the Earth really is flat then there obviously wasn't
a Soviet Union on the other side of the planet.

-HJC

[Michael Petukhov]

(Henry J. Cobb) wrote in message >...
> (B2431) wrote in message >...
> > Let's face it, you have made up your mind an, logic and facts be damned, you
> > know what's right and the thousands of people involved with the landings are
> > all liars.
>
> Oh, it's a much bigger conspiracy than that.
>
> After all hundreds of scientists at outside labs were given moon rocks
> to play with that had features that they claimed to not be able to
> reproduce on the Earth.

Moon meteorites, are quite often found on earth. You van even buy it
for 1000$/gram.

>
> And then there are several other countries that could very well have
> tracked the Apollo missions and never complained about not seeing
> them.

Sure. they tracked automatical probe with TV/radio transmitter.

>
> But I suppose if the Earth really is flat then there obviously wasn't
> a Soviet Union on the other side of the planet.

this clearly indicates your intellectual level.

Michael
>
> -HJC

[Nick Coleman]

Michael Petukhov wrote:

>>
>> And then there are several other countries that could very well have
>> tracked the Apollo missions and never complained about not seeing
>> them.
>
> Sure. they tracked automatical probe with TV/radio transmitter.

Go and see a good Australian movie called "The Dish". Then tell me how they
'simulated' the transmission from the moon, especially the bit when the
moon comes over the horizon.

It can't be a satellite: if you know anything about orbital mechanics, you
would know it can't be done *unless the transmitter is on the moon*.
Here's a clue: orbital period is entirely dependent on distance from earth.

It can't be an aircraft; no aircraft could fly fast enough for the change in
the angle of the transmission to be quick enough, especially at low horizon
angles.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Nick Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> >>
> >> And then there are several other countries that could very well have
> >> tracked the Apollo missions and never complained about not seeing
> >> them.
> >
> > Sure. they tracked automatical probe with TV/radio transmitter.
>
> Go and see a good Australian movie called "The Dish". Then tell me how
they
> 'simulated' the transmission from the moon, especially the bit when the
> moon comes over the horizon.
>

Michael's claim is that the Americans flew a fully automated tv and
radio relay satellite to the moon and landed it there. The fact
that with 1960's technology this would be at least as difficult as
flying 3 men is of course irrelevant,

Keith

[Michael Petukhov]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Nick Coleman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Michael Petukhov wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> And then there are several other countries that could very well have
> > >> tracked the Apollo missions and never complained about not seeing
> > >> them.
> > >
> > > Sure. they tracked automatical probe with TV/radio transmitter.
> >
> > Go and see a good Australian movie called "The Dish". Then tell me how
> they
> > 'simulated' the transmission from the moon, especially the bit when the
> > moon comes over the horizon.
> >
>
> Michael's claim is that the Americans flew a fully automated tv and
> radio relay satellite to the moon and landed it there. The fact
> that with 1960's technology this would be at least as difficult as
> flying 3 men is of course irrelevant,
>

The fact is that manned mission was and still is much more difficult.
Although given that time level of technology I agree that it was huge
US achivement. nevertheless we did better in the department
of automatical probes in Moon. Would you agree that russia won the
moon race in that automatical probe department?

Michael
> Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Michael Petukhov" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...

>
> The fact is that manned mission was and still is much more difficult.
> Although given that time level of technology I agree that it was huge
> US achivement. nevertheless we did better in the department
> of automatical probes in Moon. Would you agree that russia won the
> moon race in that automatical probe department?
>

Yes

Keith

[B2431]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>
<snip>

Would you agree that russia won the
>moon race in that automatical probe department?
>
>Michael
>> Keith
>
No I would not. The U.S. sent automatic landers to the moon before the Soviets
did. As a matter of fact one of the manned landings cannibalized parts from one
such lander (Ranger?)

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Michael Petukhov)
> >
> <snip>
>
> Would you agree that russia won the
> >moon race in that automatical probe department?
> >
> >Michael
> >> Keith
> >
> No I would not. The U.S. sent automatic landers to the moon before the
Soviets
> did. As a matter of fact one of the manned landings cannibalized parts
from one
> such lander (Ranger?)
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

To be fair I have to support Michael on this one.
Its a simple matter of record that the first succesful
landing mission on the moon was the Soviet Luna 9
in Jan 1966 .

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1966-006A

Similarly the first return probes were the Zond 5 & 6 in 1968

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1968-076A

The Ranger series made rather hard impacts so I doubt
anything was left from them to salvage. It was the
Surveyor series that made soft landings.

Even NASA had to concede that the SOviets sent the first probe to
impact the Moon, made the first flyby and image of the lunar farside,
the first soft landing, first lunar orbiter, and the first circumlunar probe
to return to Earth.

Keith